In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...

snip

You miss the point [again] -- it's not up to you, or me, to judge or
second-guess the decisions and the situation of the guy who shot the
burglars,

I have neither judged Walton nor second-guessed him. I have no problem with
him shooting those burglars.

but unquestionably the place is better off for his presence, and the
absence
of the men he shot, than it would be the other way around. That's a
*fact*,
Ed, not speculation, and that it makes you uncomfortable does not make it
any
less a fact.

OK, I guess I'm not quite done yet, because you've made several categorically
false statements here.

It neither makes me uncomfortable nor does it make it a fact. You seem to
have a near endless supply of criminals in Dallas.

Not me -- I'm not within a thousand miles of Dallas.

Shooting two of them
makes no difference that you can measure, except in your fantasies. Nor is
there any evidence that your supply of well-armed citizens does anything to
reduce your outrageously high crime rate. The crime reports tell us that
your crime rate remains very high despite the fairly high number of armed
citizens you have, as measured by a report that was done some years ago.


Anyway -- I'm done with this subthread. Have the last word if it makes you
feel better, but know that I'd rather have Walton for a neighbor than you.

Doug, you argue that Walton's actions make you safer,

That simply is not true. I have never argued that.

which is nonsense, and
then you turn around and tell us what a great guy Walton is,

That isn't true either.

*Now* I'm done -- unless you make more false statements about what I've
written.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.